Here's What Every Liberal Is Worried That Obama Will Do Next

Democrats aren't thrilled that taxes are only rising on those making $400K and above, as they had hope to see a rise on those making $250K.

But it's a negotiation, and Obama didn't give up much else, and the "leverage" Obama was going to have once we went over the cliff was always overstated.

The big worry is not the deal per se, but that after failing to draw his line in the sand in this fight, he'll fail to live up to another promise, which is not fighting over the debt ceiling again.

This is shaping up to be a big standoff. Obama has flatly said he will not negotiate over raising the debt ceiling (i.e. honoring the nation's obligations). Republicans are spoiling for another 2011-like fight, and are calling it the big opportunity. They also think they have more leverage this time than they had over the Fiscal Cliff fight, since taxes aren't about to rise on 100% of taxpayers.

Here's Krugman, who was very hard initially on Obama as details of the deal came out, but moderated his tone a little bit:

So why the bad taste in progressives’ mouths? It has less to do with where Obama ended up than with how he got there. He kept drawing lines in the sand, then erasing them and retreating to a new position. And his evident desire to have a deal before hitting the essentially innocuous fiscal cliff bodes very badly for the confrontation looming in a few weeks over the debt ceiling.

If Obama stands his ground in that confrontation, this deal won’t look bad in retrospect. If he doesn’t, yesterday will be seen as the day he began throwing away his presidency and the hopes of everyone who supported him.

...President Obama insisted that he was going to stick to the $250,000 cut-off requiring that the top 2% of households, the big winners in the economy, go back to paying the Clinton era tax rates. He backed away from this commitment even in a context where he held most of the cards. We are now entering a new round of negotiations over extending the debt ceiling where the Republicans would appear to hold many of the cards.

While the consequences may not be as dire as the pundits claim, no one could think it would be a good idea to allow the debt ceiling to be reached and force the government into default. The Republicans intend to use this threat, however, to coerce further concessions from President Obama. The president insists that there will be no negotiations over the debt ceiling: no further concessions to protect the country's financial standing.

So what we have is two more showdowns in which the parties disagree not just on the outcome but even on the parameters of an outcome. Obama thinks the debt ceiling needs to be raised, full stop, without becoming a bargaining chip in a fight that threatens the stability of the global economy. Republicans want to use that chip. Then there’s the sequester, which Obama thinks should be replaced with spending cuts and tax revenue, and Republicans think should be replaced with spending cuts and more spending cuts.

If Obama makes it through both these events without either accepting draconian social policy or triggering an economic meltdown, then today’s compromise will be seen as a clever first step. That’s not what I expect. I expect instead that his willingness to bargain away his strongest leverage, and the central theme of his reelection, will make the next rounds harder, and embolden Republicans further. I suspect he will wish he had ripped off the Band-Aid all at once, holding firm on tax cuts and daring House Republicans to defy public opinion.

So there you go. Everyone's worried about another Obama cave in a fight where the GOP feels emboldened.

While Obama says he won't bargain on the debt ceiling, he HAS to bargain on the sequester (unless he wants the spending cuts to happen as is) so that's probably where he'll wiggle and end up in a bargain that would likely include the debt ceiling.